Seems we won't be able to convince each other of our beliefs.
I'm okay with agreeing to disagree. It saddens me, but I rarely engage like this thinking I'll change the other person's opinion. To me, my reasoning is that other people besides you and I are reading our debate and hopefully will benefit from the discussion. They'll decide for themselves whose logic holds real value and merit and whose is strung together on bad assumptions and falsities. I'm glad you can articulate your point cogently and I don't mind reading your prose. I just disagree entirely with your logic, reasoning and conclusion on this topic.
If someone gets an artificial leg, they can now walk, but they are still disabled. Even if this artificial leg is in every measurable way better than a real leg (which I don't believe artificial insemination is), it is still a disability in my eyes, however that would contradict Wikipedia's definition of the word.
Wikipedia is not a source of authority on the English language and definitions of "disability", and anyway, that argument is just one of semantics. You're attempting to dismiss the validity of gay people by incorrectly classifying them as disabled, despite the lack of govt. recognition as such and eligibility for disability assistance. And you don't see any flaws with this theory? It also implies there's a treatment or a cure that can "fix" gay people, and I'm sorry, but this has never been truthful or useful thinking.
Point of life aside, we are designed to procreate,
Overall, yes, we're hardwired to procreate, and gay people still have paternal and maternal instincts, but not everyone is inclined to, needs to, wants to, or should have children. There's plenty who will regardless though, so no worries.
not being able to do so naturally is a disability,
This is a vague, poorly defined concept that again will break down into mere semantics that prove no truths for us. What defines "doing so naturally" is too debatable and wishy washy. Moreover, whether that should merit the label disability is an even thinner, weaker argument that falls apart under the slightest scrutiny, as I've already argued and demonstrated.
not just a technical one but one with real negative effects. Mate selection plays a roll in the strength of the genes of the child.
Again, vague language. What the hell is meant by "strength of the genes"? Genes do not exhibit strength. This is flowery, vapid and meaningless language and I think you have a poor understanding of genetics.
With artificial insemination in a gay couple, one of the parents is not the biological parent, which leads to defects in the emotional bond both between the child and two parents.
Now you're just randomly making shit up with zero proof of what you're talking about. This is quackery pseudoscience and garbage logic again.
It's sad that my opinions of gayness are interpreted as hate,
It is, and I'm not accusing you of harboring hate, though also not counting it out. I am however pointing out that in my opinion, that's likely how it comes across to others, not so much through vicious aggression or bad intent but through insouciant, apathetic dismissal.
but I can understand that after so much discrimination towards the gay community, anyone with any opinion other than "gay people are awesome" is viewed as hatful.
No, you're going overboard. I've stated multiple times on this thread how I don't personally care for gay culture. I find campiness and shows like RuPaul's Drag Race to be insufferable garbage to which I would rather stare at a blank screen than watch that shit. I don't care for the aesthetics of drag and overly queen-y types who act like a ridiculous parody of a sassy black woman. It grates my nerves and makes me damn-near visibly cringe. I'll be much happier when some of these stereotypes settle down and people stop affecting fake personality fronts in order to establish their identities and align it with their sexual orientation. But that's just my opinion and tastes versus other peoples' and it gives me no right to deny the legitimacy of other people's lifestyles, preferences, and choices nor to dismiss same as the lack of some ability or a "disability" or any word that serves to deceive people, harm, and/or deny a group of people their deserved civil rights.
It's important to remember that taboos follow a diminishing sine wave of demonization and romanticization, everyone hates x, then everyone loves x, we go back and forth until the truth is found.
It's more complex than that and cannot be reduced to back and forth trajectory of opposite polar extremes. It's possible to regard x without hate or love, and to state "everyone" here is also an extreme view disguised as hyperbole.
Right now we're in the overt romanticization period and I expect a shift towards the opposite very soon, hopefully it's close to the flatline of truth.
I will agree with you here though that there is an obnoxious level of trendiness to alternative human sexual orientation that annoys me.
Also, homosexual being a slur is hilarious to me, why is it that people on the left continue to seemingly attempt to make every word an offensive slur.
This is not my own original idea. I'm just reflecting to you what's already out there. I'm also not a leftist in any real fiscal sense. Socially though I am liberal. And I have to agree with the logic that the word "homosexual" is too reductive so as to be harmful to the overall societal perception. Mind you I'm not personally offended by any of this and I don't always adhere to PC speech practices either. Euphemism can become ridiculous and can backfire on people, but there's nothing wrong with striving to avoid marginalizing people with our choice of words.
It used to be that homosexual was a more PC way of calling someone gay, now you're saying they want to be called gay,
I know, isn't it an odd thing to consider? But it's a progression away from pejorative terminology. You're absolutely right though that growing up it was considered more couth to say "homosexual" instead of "faggots" or "queer". And do note: I don't love this shit either, and I find it particularly ingratiating and stupid whenever I'm asked what "my prefered gender pronouns are", for example, particularly the asinine practice of writing "he/him/his" as if I'm too fucking stupid to know how to convert a pronoun between subjective, objective, and possessive tenses. I keep joking I'm going to insist on he/her/theirs, so if referring to me as the subject of a sentence, I prefer the masculine pronoun. But if I'm the
object of a sentence, well then I prefer the feminine pronoun, and let's pluralize that when I am in possession of a thing in your sentences. Clear as mud. Haha
But
c'est la vie. I don't care that much.
I look forward to watching next years politically correct grammer olympics, I hear they're going to claim the word water is transphobic. Things like this embarrass the progressive party, which is sad because I identify as a progressive.
Look, the fact is: words matter. Yes, it seems unbelievable that a mere utterance can have such a profound effect on the human nervous system. The right combination of words from the right voice can provoke arousal, anger, fear, boredom, deep thinking, understanding, confusion, etc. Words are like incantations and what you call something or someone really does matter. For example, when people shifted from calling MDMA "ecstasy" to "molly", the popularity of MDMA exploded upward. Correlation does not prove causation, but I've held the pet theory that there is a meaningful connection there. The word "homosexual" is something of a misnomer that stuck and persisted for many years and though PC shit is annoying crap, this is an example of a term that is better off being retired. Otherwise I'm inclined to agree with your embarrassment.
Speaking of which, as a progressive, your view of what constitutes "disability" is embarrassing.
Regardless, I really don't want to go back and forth with semantic arguments, I've laid out what I believe and you've failed to convince me otherwise (or I have failed to be convinced), thanks for responding and have a great day!
You, too. The feeling is mutual.
Bonus: You didn't mention any of my trans arguments, do you agree on that?
What part? I know I don't agree with trans people who do not want to be identified as "trans" which ultimately serves to deceive others through a deliberate confusion of gender identity and sexual assignment. Again, it's not an aesthetic I care for, but I feel that's part of people's rights to express themselves in this manner as long as we're not willfully deceiving people. For instance, catfishing is fucked up in my opinion.
EDIT: sorry, can you run your trans argument by me again? I didn't mean to skip or exclude anything.
